People v Sougou (Mactar)

[*1] People v Sougou (Mactar) 2015 NY Slip Op 50146(U) Decided on February 20, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 20, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570020/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Mactar Sougou, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered December 4, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of unlicensed general vending, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered December 4, 2012, affirmed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find the record sufficient to establish defendant's understanding and waiver of his Boykin rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395

US 238 [1969]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359, 366 [2013]), and of his entry of an otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea. During plea proceedings held some seven months after his arrest, defense counsel, after acknowledging that defendant agreed to waive "formal allocution," stated that he had discussed with defendant the sentencing consequences of pleading guilty, and defendant personally confirmed, in response to the court's questioning, that he was pleading guilty voluntarily, that he committed the underlying offense, and that he understood that he was giving up his right to trial. Manifestly, this case does not involve the type of "silent record" which, as Tyrell cautions, is insufficient to "overcome the presumption against waiver by a defendant of constitutionally guaranteed protections" (People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d at 365, quoting People v. Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). To the contrary, the plea record, taken as a whole and read in context, amply shows that defendant "intelligently and understandingly rejected his [Boykin] rights" (id.).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 20, 2015